georgian court university undergraduate student learning

Georgian Court University

Undergraduate Student Learning Goals (USLG) Assessment Report

AY 2019-2020

Last Update: 7/29/2020 2 Prepared by J. Thiel

GCU Office of Institutional Assessment and Accreditation USLG Assessment Report AY 2019-2020

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 USLG Assessment Plan (2019-2022) ................................................................................................................................. 4

USLG Assessment Results - Year 1 (AY 2019-2020) .......................................................................................................... 5 GCU Academic Program Assessment Reports 2019-2020 ................................................................................................ 5 Goal 2: Intellectual and Practical Skills ............................................................................................................................ 6

2a. Critical and Creative Thinking .................................................................................................................................. 6 2b. Written and Oral Communication ............................................................................................................................. 8 2c. Quantitative Reasoning ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2d. Information Literacy ............................................................................................................................................... 14 2e. Teamwork and Problem Solving ............................................................................................................................. 16

Goal 5: Mastery of Defined Body of Knowledge at the Baccalaureate Level ................................................................. 22

Analysis of Results: .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Goal 2: Intellectual and Practical Skills .......................................................................................................................... 26

2a. Critical and creative thinking, grounded in inquiry, analysis, and synthesis of information................................... 26 2b. Written and oral communication ............................................................................................................................. 27 2c. Quantitative literacy ................................................................................................................................................ 28 2d. Information literacy ................................................................................................................................................ 29 2e. Teamwork and problem solving .............................................................................................................................. 29

Goal 5: Mastery of a Defined Body of Knowledge at the Baccalaureate Level .............................................................. 31

Action Plan: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Last Update: 7/29/2020 3 Prepared by J. Thiel


Introduction Georgian Court University is beginning its first year of a three-year plan to assess its Undergraduate Student Learning Goals (USLG). The goals selected for this year’s review are Goal 2. Intellectual and Practical Skills and Goal 5. Mastery of a Defined Body of Knowledge at a Baccalaureate Level. This report on Goal 2 aligns with the General Education Assessment Plan’s choice of goal assessment for the current year. The assessment of Goal 5 will be done annually. Assessment of student learning aligned with the above goals was obtained through direct and indirect evidence in both curricular and co-curricular areas, using the direction of the learning outcomes stated below. GOAL 2: Intellectual and Practical Skills Learning Outcomes: Students will demonstrate competence in

a. Critical and creative thinking, grounded in inquiry, analysis, and synthesis of information b. Written and oral communication c. Quantitative literacy d. Information literacy e. Teamwork and problem solving

GOAL 5: Mastery of a Defined Body of Knowledge at a Baccalaureate Level Learning Outcome: Students will attain their program’s objectives and complete their major requirements

The evidence used for this assessment report include the following: • Analysis of course offerings • Student evaluation of teaching (SIRII and eSIR) • Student satisfaction survey responses (NSSE and RNL SSI) • Retention Management Plus Surveys: RNL College Student Inventory (CSI) and Mid-

Year Student Assessment (MYSA) • Faculty survey on student engagement (FSSE) • Results of Academic Program Assessment aligned with USLG Goals 2 & 5 • Direct evidence of student accomplishment

With the revision of the university’s Institutional Student Learning Goals (ISLG) into Undergraduate Student Learning Goals (USLG) and Graduate Student Learning Goals (GSLG), the assessment of the ISLG will be separated into these two areas. Moreover, the GCU Strategic Compass (2018) covers academic excellence and student engagement in its first two directions. The Strategic Compass dashboard will also contribute to assessment of the institutional student learning goals. Hence, there is no specific action plan associated with the AY 2019-2020 results from the Office of Institutional Assessment and Accreditation, but the assessment information contained therein will be shared with the appropriate university offices and departments for further action.


Last Update: 7/29/2020 4 Prepared by: J. Thiel

USLG Assessment Plan (2019-2022)

Assessment Plan for Institutional Student Learning Goals (ISLG) GCU Undergraduate Programs Year 3: 2018-2019 Institutional Student Learning Goal

Direct Assessment Indirect Assessment Responsible Party Assessment Cycle for Analysis (Data collected yearly)

Goal 2. Intellectual and Practical Skills

Assessment of program learning outcomes aligned with USLG 2. Evidence of student artifact assessment aligned with Goal 2 within the AEFIS system.

OIAA Year 1

Learning Outcome

2a. critical and creative thinking, grounded in inquiry, analysis, and synthesis of information

Evidence of student scholarship as evidenced in the undergraduate student research program and presentations. Senior Showcases in Dance, Graphic Design, and Multimedia.

SIR II data NSSE data FSSE data

OIAA/ Office of the Provost

2b. written and oral communication

Evidence of student achievement through the Writing Center assessment report. Evidence of student achievement as offered through the Writing Intensive assessment report.

SIR II data NSSE data FSSE data RNL Retention Management Plus Data related to Writing Intensive (WI) course offerings

OIAA/ Director of Writing Center and Director of Writing Intensive Program.

2c. quantitative reasoning

Student achievement as evidenced by Financial Avenue course results. (GEN 101).

NSSE data FSSE data RNL Retention Management Plus Course Enrollment by Quantitative Topics

OIAA/ GEN101 Director

2d. information literacy

Evidence of student achievement through the Information Literacy report of the Sister Mary Cunningham University Library.

NSSE data FSSE data

OIAA/ SMCUL assessor

2e. teamwork and problem solving

Roster of athletes Scholar Athletes WILD and Emerging Leaders Program Data

SIR II data NSSE data FSSE data RNL SSI data

OIAA/ Athletics



Assessment Plan for Institutional Student Learning Goals (ISLG) GCU Undergraduate Programs Year 3: 2018-2019 Institutional Student Learning Goal

Direct Assessment Indirect Assessment Responsible Party Assessment Cycle for Analysis (Data collected yearly)

Goal 5. Mastery of a Body of Knowledge leading to the Baccalaureate Degree

5a. Students will attain their program’s objectives and complete their major requirements

Data related to undergraduate program enrollment and graduation statistics.

Course and section data related to senior seminar or capstone courses and sections offered.

OIAA Year 1, 2, & 3

USLG Assessment Results - Year 1 (AY 2019-2020) GCU Academic Program Assessment Reports 2019-2020

Programs’ report on learning outcomes aligned with USLG Goals 2 and 5. Results may be found in the Executive Summary on Academic Program Assessment Reports (AY 2019-2020). PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED IN AY 2019-2020 Criminal Justice LO2: Students will demonstrate an ability to present work and to collaborate in

course presentations evaluated by common rubric. Dance Learning Outcomes: Upon successful completion of the program of studies for

the Dance Major, the student will earn a degree in Bachelor of Arts in Dance and will have given evidence of: Goal 1 Mastery in performance LO1: Accomplished techniques in various modalities of dance and mastery in personal performance forms. Goal 2: Creativity in the art form LO2: Develop skills to support leadership in the world of dance evoking the wisdom of the body imagination and creative thinking.

Digital Communication

Develop strong verbal and non-verbal communication skills.

English Students will regularly submit critical literary analysis and/or creative essays in

required English program courses. Exercise Science LO3: Students will communicate effectively in both written and oral formats,

alone and in teams, and demonstrate academic research skills as applied to exercise science through assigned writing and research-based assignments and in class presentations.



PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED IN AY 2019-2020 Mathematics Students will perform, understand, and apply the properties of mathematical

operations through assignments and testing in the program's core coursework. Students will produce solutions of real-world and theoretical problems in a precise and logical fashion and identify key mathematical structures through assignments, presentations, and testing in the program’s core coursework.

Psychology and Counseling

Demonstrate scientific reasoning ability and apply behavioral science research methodology as evidenced by program coursework. [ISLG #2a]

Religious Studies Students will develop critical thinking skills on issues in the field of Religious

Studies. Social Work Students will be guided toward the life-long learning and commitment

necessary for current credentialing and licensure, advanced MSW study, advocacy for issues of social justice in social work practice, and academic research and service opportunities as inspired and guided by the Mercy Core values and Critical Concerns.

World Languages: Spanish

For the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020, we completed a formative assessment of Learning Outcome 1: Perform Literary Analysis in the target language with appropriate bibliography and MLA citations.

Undergraduate Business Programs

Effective oral and written business communication skills.

Goal 2: Intellectual and Practical Skills 2a. Critical and Creative Thinking

In the spring semester 2020, the academic excellence and student research showcases were done virtually. The program for the juried exhibition of faculty-student scholarship listed 8 paper, 11 poster, and two video submittals. Notes from the program follow: Each year, Georgian Court University celebrates the scholarship and creative works of GCU students and their faculty mentors. This annual event focuses on scholarly pursuits and research findings across disciplines like biochemistry, biology, dance, exercise science, history, social

2a. critical and creative thinking, grounded in inquiry, analysis, and synthesis of information.

Evidence of student scholarship as evidenced in the undergraduate student research program and presentations. Senior Showcases in Dance, Graphic Design, and Multimedia.

SIR II data NSSE data FSSE data RNL SSI data RNL Retention Management Plus



work, and more. This year’s virtual celebration celebrates the following papers, posters, and videos on topics ranging from global food security and maternal mortality rate to explorations of literary works by Walt Whitman, Zora Neale Hurston, and Langston Hughes. (See https://georgian.edu/academics/student-faculty-research/ ) The faculty committee selected the competition winners: Paper Competition (3), Poster Competition (3), and Video Competition (2). The Georgian Court Dance program presented its spring choreography live showing via Blackboard Collaborate on May 13. This program featured works by eight students under the direction of Silvana Cardell, program director. The Graphic Design and Multimedia department presented its spring showcase of 7 senior students within a virtual exhibition of the Graphic Design & Multimedia Senior Show 2020. Each of the students prepared a Theme Project, one particular theme explored in three different channels, and a Project Revisited, four previous projects touched up. Please see https://seniorshow2020.wixsite.com/website Student survey evidence of learning outcome 2a: Critical and creative thinking is as follows. SIR II data Taken from Spring 2020, separate questions under Section E Supplemental Instructional Methods and Section F Course Outcomes.

• SIRII QUESTION 26. case studies WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.41/5 Not used: 31% Section E NORM 4.36

• ESIR QUESTION 26. case studies WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.20/5 Not used: 60% Section E NORM 4.21

ETS SIRII comparative mean for Section E is not computed, since not all instructors use the indicated methods.

• SIRII QUESTION 32. think independently WEIGHTED AVERAGE 3.71/5 Section F NORM 3.67

• ESIR QUESTION 32. think independently WEIGHTED AVERAGE 3.50/5 Section F NORM 3.40

ETS SIRII comparative mean for Section F is 3.42. NSSE data, Spring 2019 FSSE data, Spring 2019 Faculty responses to: To what extent do you structure your selected course section so that students learn and develop in the following areas?

• 29c. Thinking critically and analytically 93% of FY and 100% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

Student responses to: How much has your experience at this institution contributed to your

https://georgian.edu/academics/student-faculty-research/

https://seniorshow2020.wixsite.com/website



knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

• 17c. Thinking critically and analytically 84% of FY and 85% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

Under High Impact Practices (HIP), research with faculty and senior culminating experiences align with learning outcome 2a of USLG Goal 2. Data from the 2019 Spring NSSE/FSSE surveys is as follows.

2b. Written and Oral Communication

Writing Center Assessment Report: January 2020 Goal assessed: Students will become better writers. They will increase the sophistication of their writing with correct grammar, sound logic, and persuasive rhetoric. Students will learn to integrate research sources properly, cite them accurately, and document them appropriately in adherence with APA, CMS, CSE, and MLA standards. Metrics Used to Assess the Goal: As a direct measure, Writing Center staff identified students who used the Center more than five times during the 2017-2018 academic year and requested that those students submit drafts of their papers. One draft needed to be rough. i.e., the first draft with which the student visited the center. The final draft needed to be the one the student submitted for a grade. Using the Writing Program rubric, Writing Center staff scored the rough drafts and final drafts of 23 students’ papers, for a total of 46 papers scored. The rubric, which contains eight areas of competency, was scored on a scale of 6-10 (10 being significantly above tutors’ expectations and 6 being significantly below). A student who showed no sign of competency received a 0. A score between 8 and 9 meets expectations of the rubric. The eight rubric categories are as follows: 1A: Argument 1B: Support 2A: Structure 2B: Coherence 3A: Research Skills 3B: Source Integration and Citation by Style 4A: Conventions 4B: Audience/Voice/Rhetorical Situation Surveys, questionnaires and usage statistics are available as indirect measures.

FY Participation

SR Participation

Faculty Participation

Faculty ImportanceNSSE variable: 11e research; FSSE variables: 6a fdresearch, 1e fresearch

FY Participation

SR Participation


Faculty ImportanceNSSE variable: 11f capstone ; FSSE variable: 1f fcapstone

87

N/A

59

Senior Culminating Experience2

37

64

25

Research with Faculty5

2b. written and oral communication

Evidence of student achievement through the Writing Center assessment report. Evidence of student achievement as offered through the Writing Intensive assessment report.

SIR II data NSSE data FSSE data RNL MYSA data Data related to Writing Intensive (WI) course offerings



Outcome Results Rough draft average rubric scores fell below expectations for all rubric categories. Final drafts met or exceeded expectations in 7/8 rubric categories. The category that fell below expectations was 3B (Source integration and citation according to style sheet). Students' averages in this category, however, did increase from 6.0 to 7.5, which suggests that students honed their citation and quotation integration skills. Overall, along with 3B, the lowest categories were 1B (Support; 6.5) and 3A (Research Skills; 7.0). The scores increased to 8.0 and 8.5, respectively. Individually, 17 of 20 students improved their rubric scores (85%). This is a similar increase as that of last year, when 83% of students improved their skills. 1 student finished with the same score, and 2 students received lower scores. Whereas 9 of 20 rough drafts met rubric expectations (45%), 18 of 20 final-draft rubric scores met expectations (90%). The original plan calls for a majority of students to show improvement, and, based on the assessment, 85% of students showed improvement in their final drafts. Furthermore, 90% of final drafts met expectations, an increase of 45%. These achievements were made during an extremely busy year at the center. The focus on grammar, organization, and mechanics will continue at the writing center. Furthermore, the positive energy, and low- stakes atmosphere will remain unchanged. It is clear that students learn from the center and are comfortable when they visit. Writing Center Action Plan Action: The director will continue meeting one-on-one with tutors and in groups to practice tutoring skills. Each tutor will attend at least one workshop on the new APA 7th edition. Tutors will continue reviewing writing assignments and rubrics to stay up to date with professors' essay questions and standards. Expected Results: At least 85% of students' final papers will exceed rubric expectations. Resources Needed: The only resource the writing center requires at this point is sufficient funds to pay tutors as the Title III grant draws down. Timeline for initiation: CY 2020 Writing Intensive Program Assessment Report June 2020 LO1: Use informal/low stakes writing as a gateway to critical thinking and learning. The Writing Intensive Program conducted its assessment for year one by surveying faculty members teaching GEN199 and GEN400. 86% of GEN199 students met or exceeded the "evident" level of the common rubric; 85% of GEN400 students met or exceeded the "effective" level of the same rubric. All faculty respondents assign informal/ low-stakes writing, but several faculty members do not use the common rubric, which suggests that it may be time to revise the rubric, particularly for GEN400 courses. The Writing Intensive Program, in consultation with the General Education Director and faculty, will address this during Fall 2020.



Writing Intensive Course Sections

SIR II data Taken from Spring 2020, separate questions under Section E Supplemental Instructional Methods and Section F Course Outcomes.

• SIRII QUESTION 23. Individual Assignment/term paper/project WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.41 Not used: 17% Section E NORM 4.36

• ESIR QUESTION 22. Individual Assignment/term paper/project WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.20 Not used: 11% Section E NORM 4.21

• SIRII QUESTION 27. Use of journals WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.33 Not used: 41% Section E NORM 4.36

• ESIR QUESTION 26. Journals/blogs WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.35 Not used: 56% Section E NORM 4.21

ETS SIRII comparative mean for Section E is not computed, since not all instructors use the indicated methods.

• SIRII QUESTION 35. Class prep time: reading and assignments WEIGHTED AVERAGE 3.58 Section G NORM 3.63

• ESIR QUESTION 36. Class preparation time WEIGHTED AVERAGE 3.51 Section G NORM 3.47

ETS SIRII comparative mean for Section G is 3.74. NSSE data, Spring 2019 FSSE data, Spring 2019 Faculty responses to: To what extent do you structure your selected course section so that students learn and develop in the following areas?

FALL 18 FALL 19 SPRING 19 SPRING 20# WI SECTIONS 34 17 48 65# WI COURSES 10 9 26 33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Num

ber o

f Sec

tions

GCU WRITING INTENSIVE COURSES AND SECTIONS



• 29a. Writing clearly and effectively 56% of FY and 80% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 29b. Speaking clearly and effectively 54% of FY and 80% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

Student responses to: How much has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

• 17a. Writing clearly and effectively 83% of FY and 78% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

• 17b. Speaking clearly and effectively 74% of FY and 76% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

RNL Mid-Year Student Assessment (MYSA) Spring 2020 This survey is administered to all second semester first-year students enrolled in GEN 199 or ENG 106. These students took the College Student Inventory (CSI) at the beginning of the fall term. Comparative results are given for those students who took both surveys. Note: Associated with Learning Outcome 2b are Reading Interests and Verbal and Writing Confidence and Receptivity to Academic Assistance in Writing and Reading Skills. Associated with Learning Outcome 2c are Math and Science Confidence and Receptivity to Academic Assistance in Math Skills.



2c. Quantitative Reasoning 2c. quantitative reasoning Student achievement as evidenced

by Financial Avenue course results. (GEN 101).

SIR II data NSSE data FSSE data RNL Retention Management Plus Course Enrollment by Quantitative Topics

Student achievement in Financial Avenue, a financial literacy course, offered to students through the Title III grant. All students enrolled in Gen101 are required to enroll in the course. Results are as follows:

Of the 124 users, 58 or 47% completed the program. Course module completion and average are given in the table below, for AY 2019-2020. This was the first year of program use. Module Name Percent completed Average Grade Required for GEN

101 Foundation of Money 62.9 90.28 x College and Money 54 89.03 x FAFSA 5.6 86.61 Loan Guidance 50.8 85.62 x Psychology of Money 81.5 NA x Earning Money 49.2 88.52 x Credit and Protection of Money 3.2 85.42

Spending and 3.2 89.5



Borrowing Money Future of Your Money 3.2 85.42 Debt and Repayment 3.2 86.67 Foundation of Money- Español 0.8 100

Courses offered in quantitative topics: Mathematics, Economics, Accounting, Research Methods, Statistics, Physics, Business Analytics, Computational Analysis, and Teaching Methods: Mathematics. Number of Courses Number of Sections Student Enrollment Fall 2019 29 59 694 Spring 2020 37 60 664 TOTAL AY 19-20 66 119 1358

Results from RNL RMS+ Surveys – Science and Math Confidence – See above. NSSE data, Spring 2019 FSSE data, Spring 2019 Faculty responses to: To what extent do you structure your selected course section so that students learn and develop in the following areas?

• 29d. Analyzing numerical and statistical information 48% of FY and 49% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 29i. Solving complex real-world problems 63% of FY and 76% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.


• 17d. Analyzing numerical and statistical information 63% of FY and 60% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

• 17i. Solving complex real-world problems 74% of FY and 70% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

Quantitative Reasoning Section Faculty responses to: To what extent do you structure your selected course section so that students learn and develop in the following areas?

• 22d. Reach conclusions based on their own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.) 81% of FY and 72% of SR instructors responded very often and often.

• 22e. Use numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.) 63% of FY and 68% of SR instructors responded very often and often.

• 22f. Evaluate what others have concluded from numerical information



71% of FY and 70% of SR instructors responded very often and often. Student responses to: How much has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

• 22d. Reach conclusions based on their own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.) 50% of FY and 53% of SR students responded very often and often.

• 22e. Use numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.) 37% of FY and 48% of SR students responded very often and often.

• 22f. Evaluate what others have concluded from numerical information 41% of FY and 39% of SR students responded very often and often.

2d. Information Literacy 2d. information literacy Evidence of student achievement

through the Information Literacy report of the Sister Mary Cunningham University Library.

NSSE data FSSE data

Academic Program Assessment Report June 2020 Sr. Mary Joseph Cunningham Library AY 2019-2020 Executive Summary The Sister Mary Joseph Cunningham Library conducted its assessment on student learning at the end of AY2019 on the learning outcome. Students will further their knowledge of the research process, with the following parts: a) students will refine their topics, b) students will formulate and apply search strategies, c) students will obtain appropriate materials. The library used three assessment protocol: Reference Transaction Data, logged instances of research help with librarians, @ 30 minutes per transaction, over a 3-year period (direct/summative); Consultation Data, logged instances of in-depth research help with librarians, often appoints @ 30 minutes per consultation, over a 1-year period (direct/summative); Consultation Survey Data, results from a 9-question survey filled out by librarians per each consultation, providing anecdotal information on learning outcome, and addressing all 5 ACRL Frames for Information Literacy in Higher Education (direct/formative, summative). Overall, it was found that the rate of student information literacy learning through consultations was 94%, compared to other venues of reference and research assistance (email, in-person, phone), with a rate of 50%. Consultations almost met the library's expected result of 100% of students achieving the learning outcome. Given the library's expected result, given the usage of consultations as a library service at approximately 7%, and given the overall effectiveness of consultations, there is room to explore and grow this point-of-service for the furthering of student information literacy learning. The library will consider expanding and promoting this program offering, if the staffing of professional librarians is sufficient to support it.



AY 2018-2019 Executive Summary As per the Program Assessment Plan 3, the library assessed students’ information literacy skills in the following classes: EN111, GEN199, GEN400, through the prescribed assessment protocols. In most measurements, assessment showed expected results were met and exceeded. In two assessments, expected results were not met, but some of this can be linked to external factors beyond our control, such as participation of students and faculty, but overall the library is satisfied with the results of this assessment and of student learning. The library taught 62 total English classes during the assessment period, 75% were EN111 (indirect/summative), and students completed in-class searching assignments and evaluation of information sources during library instruction under the guidance of a librarian instructor (indirect/formative). For all GEN199 students who took the Searchpath module quizzes, expected result that 90% of all students would complete Searchpath (indirect/summative) was not met (Spring 2018 data not available; Spring 2019 60% completed module quizzes). Expected result that 70% would score at least 70% or greater on each module quiz (direct/summative) was met and exceeded for Spring 2018, with the exception of Quiz 2 (% of total quizzes taken scoring @ 70%: Quiz 1: 79%, Quiz 2: 65%, Quiz 3: 80%, Quiz 4: 81%), and was met and exceeded for Spring 2019 with no exceptions (Quiz 1: 89%, Quiz 2: 84%, Quiz 3: 91%, Quiz 4: 88%). For GEN400 students, a sample size of 21 annotated bibliographies from final projects was extracted, with the cooperation of teaching faculty in 2 sections. These annotated bibliographies were evaluated through a rubric (direct/summative) designed by the Information Literacy and Assessment Librarian during the Spring 2019 semester. It was found that students scored an average of 86% on this assignment, which was 2% lower than the stated expected result of 88%, but the library considers this a satisfactory average score, given the small sample size of 12%. Going forward, the library will work toward additional faculty support and a 20% sample size of annotated bibliographies. Action items outlined in Full Data Report will be made toward future Academic Program Assessment Plan 3 according to the timeframes outlined in #15 and #22. NSSE data, Spring 2019 FSSE data, Spring 2019 Faculty responses to: In your selected course section, how much does the coursework emphasize the following?

• 27d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source 63% of FY and 86% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

Student responses to: In your selected course section, how much does the coursework emphasize the following?



• 4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source 74% of FY and 79% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

2e. Teamwork and Problem Solving 2e. teamwork and problem solving

Roster of athletes Scholar Athletes WILD and Emerging Leaders program data

SIR II data NSSE data FSSE data RNL SSI data

Student Life Assessment Report January 2020 Executive Summary The Office of Student Life assessed its goal to increase participation in both Emerging Leaders and WILD, while creating a co-curriculum that increases the students’ leadership and critical thinking skills for the CY 2018 reporting cycle. From the data collected, the unit goal fulfilled outcome 2: to create co-curriculums that focus on leadership development and critical thinking. However, the results were split when evaluating outcome 1: increase participation in both WILD and Emerging Leaders. Participation in the WILD program increased just over 50% from 2018-2019, however, Emerging Leaders declined by 23%. The findings that can support the decline in the Emerging Leaders program are two-fold. 1) Emerging Leaders is the Georgian Court University co-educational leadership program. However, we saw a decline in our male student participation beginning in 2017, after the inaugural Emerging Leaders participants graduated. Considering a large majority of our male population is student-athlete based, recruitment of male students is difficult given the vast number of other responsibilities and requirements student-athletes are required to complete. In addition, there has been a large amount of turnover in the position of Coordinator of Student Leadership and Engagement. Since 2017, the position has had three different coordinators. This greatly disturbs the continuity of the program and its ability to recruit and retain members, especially when you have a new program such as Emerging Leaders. Steps to improve recruitment and retention is to rebrand the Emerging Leaders program in that it can distinctly differentiate itself from WILD and have a broader appeal to all students and keeping in-mind the need for flexibility in order to accommodate as many students as possible. Two departments that the Office of Student Life will collaborate with is both Admission and the Marketing department. Both these departments are key in the development and promotion of the newly branded organization.



Roster of Student Athletes AY 2019-2020

Men’s Team Women’s Teams Basketball 19 Basketball 14 Cross Country 7 Cross Country 10 Lacrosse 42 Lacrosse 24 Soccer 44 Soccer 29 Track and Field 34 Softball 26 Track and Field 36 Volleyball 16 TOTAL 146 155

Athletes AY 2018-2019 EADA Information https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Scholar-Athlete Achievements: AY 2019-2020 5/21/19 GCU Student Athletes place 2nd Nationally on Helper Helper Report with nearly 8000

hours of service. 8/27/19 Lions receive Division II Athletic Directors Association Academic Achievement

Awards 4/21/20 Chi Alpha Sigma Class of 2020. The class of 2020 has been announced as 20 Georgian

Court University student-athletes have earned selection into the prestigious New Jersey Iota Chapter of Chi Alpha Sigma.

3/26/20 The Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference has announced that the Georgian Court University men's & women's basketball duo has earned selection to the 2019-20 CACC All-Academic Team.

5/14/20 Student Athletes place 6th Nationally across Division II with more than 5000 hours of service.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details



SIR II data Taken from Spring 2020, separate questions under Section E Supplemental Instructional Methods and Section F Course Outcomes. Section E

• SIRII QUESTION 22. Small group discussions WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.40/5 Not used: 11%

• ESIR QUESTION 23. Small group discussions WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.24/5 Not used: 15%

• SIRII QUESTION 24. labs WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.44/5 Not used: 39%

• ESIR QUESTION 24. labs WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.36/5 Not used: 71%

• SIRII QUESTION 25 team projects WEIGHTED AVERAGE 4.23/5 Not used: 31%

• ESIR QUESTION 25. Team projects WEIGHTED AVERAGE 3.91/5 Not used: 54%

SIR II: GCU Section E NORM 4.36 eSIR: CU Section E NORM 4.21 Section F

• SIRII QUESTION 33. Active learning WEIGHTED AVERAGE 3.73/5 Section F NORM 3.67

• ESIR QUESTION 33. Active learning WEIGHTED AVERAGE 3.42/5 Section F NORM 3.40

ETS SIRII comparative mean for Section F is 3.42. NSSE data, Spring 2019 FSSE data, Spring 2019 Collaborative Learning Faculty responses to: In your selected course section, how much do you encourage students to do the following?

• 25a. Ask other students for help understanding course material 61% of FY and 65% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 25b. Explained course material to one or more students 54% of FY and 61% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 25c. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 66% of FY and 65% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 25d. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 54% of FY and 68% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.



Student responses to: In your selected course section, how much does your coursework encourage the following?

• 1e. Ask other students for help understanding course material 45% of FY and 48% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

• 1f. Explained course material to one or more students 52% of FY and 65% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

• 1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 56% of FY and 47% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

• 1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 69% of FY and 66% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

Within the High Impact Practices (HIP) forming a learning community and service-learning correlate with learning outcome 2e. Results from the FSSE/NSSE Survey in Spring 2019 had the following results: (Percent of respondents).

RNL Mid-Year Student Assessment (MYSA) February 2020 General Coping Skills Social Engagement Social Engagement

F (Percent Receptive)

M TOTAL

Pre 53.4% 53.0% 53.3% Mid 50.8% 53.2% 51.4% Receptivity to Social Engagement: receptivity scale = 64%

Received Help – Yes (#)

No (#)

Want help – Yes (#)

No (#)

New Friends 57 71 38 90

FY Participation

SR Participation


Faculty ImportanceNSSE variable: 11c learncom; FSSE variable: 1c flearncom

Learning Community8

38

N/A

61

FY Participation

SR Participation


Faculty ImportanceNSSE variable: 11c learncom; FSSE variable: 1c flearncom

Learning Community8

38

N/A

61

FY Participation

SR Participation


Faculty ImportanceNSSE variable: 12 servcourse; FSSE variables; 9 fservcourse, 1g fservice

Service-Learning90

93

79

81



Social Engagement

F (Percent Receptive)

M TOTAL

Student Government

64 64 36 92

Clubs and Organizations

71 57 46 82

Satisfaction with level of interaction with other students

5.59/7

Opportunity for community Service

5.55/7

Bridge General Education Assessment Report AY 2019-2020 Course USLG/Bridge Goal 2 - Intellectual and Practical skills LOs Assessed GEN101 Goal 2e Teamwork and Problem solving (Formative) Students will demonstrate competence in Teamwork and Problem solving. GEN199 2a Critical thinking (Formative) Students will demonstrate competence in Critical thinking, grounded in inquiry, analysis, and synthesis of information 2b1 Written communication (Formative) Students will demonstrate competence in Written communication 2b2 Oral communication (Formative) Students will demonstrate competence in Written communication Goal 2d (Formative) Information Literacy Students will demonstrate competence in Information Literacy. GEN400 2a Critical thinking (Summative) Students will demonstrate competence in Critical thinking, grounded in inquiry, analysis, and synthesis of information 2b1 Written communication (Summative) Students will demonstrate competence in Written communication 2b2 Oral communication (Summative) Students will demonstrate competence in Written communication Goal 2d (Summative) Information Literacy Students will demonstrate competence in Information Literacy Goal 2e Teamwork and Problem solving (Summative) Students will demonstrate competence in Teamwork and Problem solving. Assessment Data and Findings GEN101 Pathway to the Bridge Goal 2e – Teamwork and problem-solving Learning Outcome: Students will demonstrate competence in Teamwork and Problem solving (Formative) Student Learning Outcome Goal 80 % of students will meet the Beginning (level 1) or Developing (level 2) Small data set - the curriculum and assessment rubric will be reviewed and revised in summer 2020 and implemented in Fall 2020. GEN199 Discovering the Self in the Big Universe Goal 2a, 2b and 2d Learning Outcome: Students will demonstrate competence in critical thinking, written and oral communication and information literacy (Formative) Student Learning Outcome Goal 80 % of students will meet the Beginning (level 1) or Developing (level 2) During the Fall semester, there were issues with using appropriate rubrics and nonuniform assessment use for evaluation of goals. Following discussion with faculty and the identification of specific assignments to be used, the data for the Spring semester



(100% return) was much better. Overall, course met the student learning outcomes for USLG/Bridge Goals 2a, 2b and 2d, with 100% participation by all sections. The practices will be continued. GEN400 Visioning a future - Justice, Compassion and service Goal 2a, 2b, 2d and 2e Learning Outcome: Students will demonstrate competence in critical thinking, written and oral communication and information literacy (Summative) Student Learning Outcome Goal 80 % of students will meet the Advanced (level 3) or Mastery (level 4) During the Fall semester, there were issues with using appropriate rubrics and nonuniform assessment use for evaluation of goals. Following discussion with faculty and the identification of specific assignments to be used, the data for the Spring semester was much better. Overall, course met the student learning outcomes for USLG/Bridge Goals 2a, 2b and 2e. Due to furlough of Library staff, no data was yet available for goal 2d. Overall, course met the student learning outcomes for USLG/Bridge Goals 2a, 2b and 2e. The assessment tool and the rubrics for evaluation of Goal 2e will be reviewed during Fall 2020. Executive Summary The Bridge General Education Program conducted it assessment for year one by evaluating student work obtained from all sections of GEN101 (formative assessment of goal 2e), GEN199 (formative assessment of Goals 2a,2b and 2d) and GEN400 (summative assessment of Goal 2a,2b.2d and 2e) courses during Fall2019 and Spring 2020. Our findings were that (1) for the formative assessment for GEN101, the data was not reliable, and the curriculum and the rubrics should be reviewed and revised, (2) for the formative assessment for GEN199, the data was very reliable (100% response) and all the LO goals were met and (3) for the summative assessment for GEN400, the data was very reliable and all the LO goals were met – the rubric for evaluating teamwork and problem solving will be reviewed based on questions from faculty. The practices that were developed during this academic year of identifying specific assignments to evaluate each goal seems to be working well. So also, the Excel template developed for use by faculty may have helped in the high return rate of the assessment data. We will continue this practice in the future.



Goal 5: Mastery of Defined Body of Knowledge at the Baccalaureate Level Goal 5. Mastery of a Body of Knowledge leading to the Baccalaureate Degree

5a. Students will attain their program’s objectives and complete their major requirements

Data related to undergraduate program enrollment and graduation statistics.

GCU graduation rates RNL RMS+ data related to commitment to college

NSSE/ FSSE data RNL SSI data.

Enrollment in Undergraduate Degree Programs and Graduation Statistics Fall 2017- Spring 2020 School Dept Curriculum Total New

Enrollment Total

Enrollment Degrees Awarded

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

17-18

18-19

19-20

Arts & Sciences

Art, Vis Studies

Art - - - 1 2 - - - Art & Visual Studies

- - - 8 12 4 - -

Visual Art 7 9 5 7 6 8 2 9 Biology Biology 39 42 29 86 89 73 30 20

ClinLabSci 3 1 1 4 1 2 - 2 MedImagingSciences

10 15 8 18 20 21 3 -

Chem, Biochem

Biochemistry 6 4 3 12 10 11 0 1 Chemistry 0 5 6 5 6 7 2 1 Natural Sciences 6 4 2 12 11 6 3 3

Crim Justice, Anthro, Sociol

CJ and Human Rights

- 1 - - 1 - - -

Criminal Justice 25 33 20 74 76 77 22 13

Dance Dance 7 6 5 34 32 27 10 6 English English 54 30 37 132 107 81 38 37 Health Professions

Health Profession St

- 1 15 - 6 10 - -

Health Sciences - 7 21 - 1 20 - - History, Politics

History 20 28 14 53 48 36 18 12

HolHlth, ExSci, PE

ExerSc,Well&Sports

42 44 31 80 86 90 21 12

Interdisciplinary

Applied Arts & Science

- - - 2 - - - -

Humanities - - - 4 1 - - 1 Interdisciplinary St

- 14 12 19 37 32 - 6



School Dept Curriculum Total New Enrollment

Total Enrollment

Degrees Awarded

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

17-18

18-19

19-20

Math, Comp Sci, Physics

Computer Info Syst

- - 4 - - 3 - -

Mathematics 15 6 11 35 33 29 5 8 Nursing Nursing 89 134 106 249 324 376 52 53

Pre-Nursing 3 10 1 6 11 20 - - Psych, Counseling

Psychiatric Rehab & Psychology

1 6 1 6 7 3 1 -

Psychology 106 119 97 223 235 227 98 51 Relig, Theol, Philo

Religious Studies 3 0 2 9 10 9 1 2

Social Work, Geron

Social Work 43 54 48 77 88 98 21 20

World Lang., Cultures

Spanish 3 2 2 9 5 6 3 4

Totals School Arts & Sciences 482

575

481

1165

1265

1276

330

261

School Dept Curriculum Total New

Enrollment Total Enrollment Degrees

Awarded Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Business & Digital Media

Business Admin

Accounting 18 16 10 51 47 40 12 15 Business Admin. 49 54 37 115 114 105 27 31 Finance 8 6 9 11 14 17 2 3 Health Information Manage

3 0 6 2 - 2 - -

Latino Business Stud

1 1 0 1 - 1 1 -

Management 7 4 2 6 9 9 2 - Marketing 14 9 15 17 19 28 6 6

Comm, GrDsgn, MultiMed

Communications - - - 1 - - - - Digital Communication

7 10 5 14 21 22 1 6

Digital Design 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 - Graphic Design & Multi-Media

17 15 5 32 35 25 5 6

Totals School Business & Digital Media

127 118 93 255 263 253 59 67



School Dept Curriculum Total New Enrollment

Total Enrollment Degrees Awarded

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Fall 17

Fall 18

Fall 19

Education Education Early Child Ed 100 77 57 - - 2 47 29 Elementary Education

- 7 21

Elementary K-6w/TSWD

73 66 47

Elementary K-6TSWD ESL

1 - -

ElemK-6w/MidSch TSWD

2 1 -

PreEd Early Child - 7 21 PreEd Elementary Ed - 37 34 PreEd Secondary Ed - 20 30 PreTchEd: Elem K-6 95 46 12 PreTchEd: K6w/MidSch

1 1 -

PreTchEd:ErlyChldP-3

- 1 -

PreTchrEd:K-12Subjct

57 27 5

Secondary Education - 2 10 TchrEd:K-12SubjTSWD

32 26 17

TchrEd:P-2 w/TSWD 1 - - Totals School of Education 100 77 57 262 241 199 47 29

GCU Graduation Rates (GCU Quick Stats Booklet AY 19-20) Retention and Graduation Rates 4-year average (%) Last Year (%) Freshman Fall to Spring retention (1semester)

92 89

Freshman to sophomore retention (1 year)

77 79

Freshman four-year graduation rate 41 44 Freshman six-year graduation rate 50 54 Transfer four-year graduation rate 73 74 Transfer six-year graduation rate 76 75

Completions 2018-2019 Bachelor’s degrees 337 Average years to completion: Freshman 4.5 Average years to completion: Transfer 2.8



RNL RMS+ Data Spring 2020 Commitment to College CSI (Pre) N =64 MYSA (Mid) N=128

Commitment to College F M Total

Pre 52.4% 40.9% 49.9% Mid 51.0% 36.7% 47.9%

RNL Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) Spring 2020 Instructional Effectiveness

GCU National IMP SAT SD GAP IMP SAT SD GAP DIFF

Instructional Effectiveness 6.49 5.8 1.06 0.69 6.39 5.6 1.06

0.79

0.20***

4. The content of the courses within my major is valuable.

6.59 5.93 1.24 0.66 6.61 5.74 1.31 0.87 0.19**

17. There are sufficient courses within my program of study available each term.

6.55 5.35 1.69 1.2 6.48 5.38 1.6 1.1 -0.03

36. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent.

6.59 5.83 1.33 0.76 6.58 5.63 1.39 0.95 0.20**

* Difference statistically significant at the .05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the .01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the .001 level



Analysis of Results: During the AY 2019-2020, the Institutional Student Learning Goals Assessment Plan called for evaluation of student learning according to the General Education Cycle of Goal and Learning Outcome assessment. For this report, Goal 2. Intellectual and Practical Skills and Goal 5. Attainment of a Body of Knowledge at the Baccalaureate Level were assessed. Goal 2 is developed through five learning outcomes: Creative and critical thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative reasoning, information literacy, and teamwork and problem solving. Goal 5 focuses its outcome on completing the requirements for a baccalaureate degree. The plan called for both direct and indirect evidence from curricular and co-curricular programs and student experiences. The data is taken from university surveys, unit and academic program assessment reports, and annual unit and university-wide reports.

Overall, Georgian Court University meets the expectations of the above goals and gives students the opportunities to develop knowledge and skills related to practical and intellectual skills, as well as the opportunity to graduate within a reasonable amount of time, regardless of time of entry (first year or transfer).

Individual academic programs at the undergraduate level have produced assessment of student learning aligned with the above undergraduate goals 2 and 5. These results are available through the Executive Report on Academic Program Assessment for AY 2019-2020. Results from the assessment of the General Education, Writing Intensive, Writing Center, and Student Leadership programs are included with this report.

Goal 2: Intellectual and Practical Skills

Learning Outcomes: Students will demonstrate competence in

2a. Critical and creative thinking, grounded in inquiry, analysis, and synthesis of information The data for this area of assessment of student learning included evidence of student scholarship within the undergraduate student research program and presentations, and senior showcases in Dance, Graphic Design, and Multimedia. Due to the pandemic caused by COVID-19, these annual events were held virtually in Spring 2020. The juried exhibition of faculty-student scholarship listed 8 paper, 11 poster, and two video submittals, with 2-3 in each area selected for the juried positions. The dance program showcased the work of eight students, while the multimedia and graphic design presentation featured the work of seven students. Within student surveys, the SIRII and eSIR course evaluation data for Spring 2020, students rated the area of thinking independently within courses as 3.71/5 and 3.50/5 respectively. These ratings were above the overall norms and national benchmark of 3.42 for Section F of these surveys. The FSSE/NSSE data related to the importance of a course to be structured so that students learn



and develop in the area of thinking critically and analysis, shows that while instructors rate the importance of this area at 93% (FY) and 100%(SR), students reflected this area of importance at 84% (FY) and 85% (SR). Likewise, looking at these surveys’ data related to the High Impact Practices (HIP) of research with faculty and senior cumulative experience, faculty rating of importance was higher than actual student participation. (Research: faculty importance 64%, student participation 25%; Capstone: faculty importance 87%, student participation 25%).

2b. Written and oral communication

The data for this area of assessment of student learning included evidence from the annual report of the Writing Center (January 2020). Their data showed that with the intervention of the writing center tutoring, the student improved their first-draft and final-draft research paper submission. This data was taken from a sample of 23 students/46 papers. Based on the rubric results, 85% of these students showed improvement on their final drafts and met expectations in all but one category (citation). The SIR II and eSIR data from spring 2020, focused on the areas of term paper or term project assignment and class time preparation (reading and homework). For the former, the rating was 4.41/5 and 4.2/5 with the related section norm at 4.36/5 and 4.21/5 for the respective surveys. In these areas, the term assignment was stated as not used by 11% of the SIRII responders, and by 17% of the eSIR responders. Class preparation time was given as 3.58 and 3.51 for the two surveys, with the section G norms of 3.63 and 3.47. the notional norm for Section G is 3.74. GCU students spend less time preparing for class by doing assigned reading and homework. The FSSE/NSSE data related to the importance of a course to be structured so that students learn and develop in the area of writing and speaking clearly and effectively, shows that instructors rate the importance of this writing area at 56% (FY) and 80% (SR), students reflected this area of importance at 83% (FY) and 78% (SR). In the area of speaking, instructors rate the importance of this area at 54% (FY) and 80% (SR), students reflected this area of importance at 74% (FY) and 76% (SR). This is telling that the first-year instructors are making demands of the students in the area of writing but seem to be not giving this skill area sufficient importance for development. From the RNL MYSA survey, 54% of first-year students at the beginning of the second semester were receptive to academic assistance. Of these, 86 students indicated that they received assistance in writing and 44 received assistance in reading. Of these students, 49 indicated that they still wished to receive assistance in writing, and 25 in reading. GCU has a general education requirement for Writing Intensive (WI) courses. The number of WI courses and sections has varied over the past four semesters. In spring 2020, GCU offered 65 sections within 33 courses, an increase over previous semesters. WI courses were offered as GEN 199 and GEN 400 along with a variety of courses offered within the disciplines. The increase in offerings, especially within the disciplines allows students sufficient choice to fulfil



this requirement, and it strengthens the intention of supporting writing instruction across the curriculum.

2c. Quantitative literacy First-year students are offered the opportunity for financial literacy coursework as part of the GEN 101 course requirements. For the first time in fall 2019, students had access to Financial Avenue coursework in an online, self-paced format. This course enrolled 121 active users who took 394 courses. In all the coursework covered 10 course topics and included a section in Spanish. Of the enrolled students, 58 completed the program of 5 required course modules. The average grade within the program’s modules were at least 85 with the highest average (90.28) in the initial module “Foundations of Money”. As this resource becomes embedded in the GEN 101 course for subsequent semesters, its value to both the instructor and student should increase. The course program offers faculty resources for inclusion of instruction in face-to-face classroom meetings as well as the online format. Courses at GCU in quantitative topics for AY 2019-2020 numbered 66 courses offered within 119 sections with 1358 enrolled students. These courses included the General Education math requirements, as well as related quantitative courses in research, business, math, and science. The FSSE/NSSE data related to the importance of a course to be structured so that students learn and develop in the area of analyzing numerical and statistical information, shows that while instructors rate the importance of this area at 48% (FY) and 49% (SR), students reflected this area of importance at 63% (FY) and 60% (SR). In the area of solving complex real-world problems, instructors rate the importance of this area at 63% (FY) and 76% (SR), while students reflected this area of importance at 74% (FY) and 70% (SR). In these areas, expectations of students may not match course instruction in the expected skills. Within the Quantitative Reasoning Section of FSSE/NSSE (Spring 2019), faculty responses to: To what extent do you structure your selected course section so that students learn and develop in the following areas?

• 22d. Reach conclusions based on their own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.) 81% of FY and 72% of SR instructors responded very often and often.

• 22e. Use numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.) 63% of FY and 68% of SR instructors responded very often and often.

• 22f. Evaluate what others have concluded from numerical information 71% of FY and 70% of SR instructors responded very often and often.




• 22d. Reach conclusions based on their own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.) 50% of FY and 53% of SR students responded very often and often.

• 22e. Use numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.) 37% of FY and 48% of SR students responded very often and often.

• 22f. Evaluate what others have concluded from numerical information 41% of FY and 39% of SR students responded very often and often.

In the area of Quantitative Reasoning, although instructors seem to be emphasizing and providing instructional experiences in this area, students do not see the same emphasis within their perceived learning skills. The NSSE data show GCU students do not rate these experiences at the same level of competency as their peers.

2d. Information literacy The data for this area of assessment of student learning included evidence from the annual reports of the Sr. Mary Joseph Cunningham Library (June 2019 and 2020). The data from these reports showed that students who took advantage of instruction and guidance from the reference librarians were able to meet the intended skills as outlined by the ACRL Frames for Information Literacy in Higher Education (2020) and that the use of SearchPath learning modules was partially effective with its embedding in GEN 199 (2019). In the 2019 report, the library staff also reported on direct instruction on library search assignments in EN 111, and a review of annotated bibliography samples from GEN 400. The assessment met expectations in these areas. Continued and expanded use of consultation as well as addressing the accountability for SearchPath in GEN 199 were among the recommendations based on assessment data. The FSSE/NSSE data (Spring 2019) related to the importance of a course to be structured so that students learn and develop in the area of evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source, shows that while instructors rate the importance of this area at 63% (FY) and 86% (SR), students reflected this area of importance at 74% (FY) and 79% (SR). Instruction and expectation varies with first-year students.

2e. Teamwork and problem solving

The data for this area of assessment of student learning included evidence from the annual report of Student Life submitted in January 2020. This report looked at enrollment in the WILD (Women in Leadership Development) and Emerging Leaders programs. These programs were blended in AY 2019-2020. While the enrollment in WILD increased, the enrollment in the Emerging Leaders decreased. In spite of continual change in the oversight of these programs, the Office of Student



Life continues to analyze and strengthen these developmental programs for student leadership. The development of GCU’s Leadership Academy should support these endeavors. GCU’s Leadership Academy under the Office of Student Affairs is forming students within the servant-leadership model and GCU core values.

Teamwork is notably demonstrated within GCU’s Division II Athletic Program. GCU’s athletic program also supports its students with leadership opportunities as team captains, mentors, and outreach through service. It begins its development of student athletes through the GC-You program.

The rosters of the various sport teams decreased in 2019-2020. In 2019-2020 GCU rostered 291 athletes, 136 males and 155 females. In 2018-2019, student athletes numbered 374, 199 males and 175 females. The scholar-athlete accomplishments included 20 students who were inducted into the Chi Alpha Sigma class of 2020 and over 13,000 hours of community service within the past two year, earning national honors. In AY 2019-2020, 50 GCU Lions received the Division II Athletic Directors Association Academic Achievement awards.

Teamwork and problem solving was reflected in student survey responses as follows.

SIR II and eSIR student surveys on course evaluations showed that data related to small group discussions had a student rating of 4.40/5 and 4.24/5, and this area of instructional method was not used in 11% and 15% of classes, respectively. Data related to team projects had a student rating of 4.23/5 and 3.91/5, and this area of instructional method was not used in 31% and 54% of classes, respectively. It appears that team projects are not favored within the online courses either by students or faculty.

FSSE/ NSSE data (Spring 2019) in the section on Collaborative Learning had the following results from faculty and students.

Faculty responses to: In your selected course section, how much do you encourage students to do the following?

• 25a. Ask other students for help understanding course material 61% of FY and 65% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 25b. Explained course material to one or more students 54% of FY and 61% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 25c. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 66% of FY and 65% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

• 25d. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 54% of FY and 68% of SR instructors responded very much or quite a bit.

Student responses to: In your selected course section, how much does your coursework encourage the following?

• 1e. Ask other students for help understanding course material 45% of FY and 48% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

• 1f. Explained course material to one or more students



52% of FY and 65% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit. • 1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students

56% of FY and 47% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit. • 1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments

69% of FY and 66% of SR students responded very much or quite a bit.

Expectation of faculty in collaboration with others to support learning were higher than student experiences suggest, except in the area of working with other students on course projects and assignments, where student experience was higher than faculty expectations.

Within the High Impact Practices (HIP) of learning communities and service-learning, GCU’s first-year students did not meet the expected norm for identifying with a learning community, despite the faculty rating of its importance. GCU does not explicitly refer to learning communities, although there are such communities of learning in the Honors Program, student support programs of TRIO/SSS, EOF, and the PACT programs. In service-learning, nearly all GCU students had this experience, as it is a graduation requirement.

The RMS+ MYSA survey (Spring 2020) data shows that first-semester students at the beginning of the second semester had a receptivity for assistance in general coping skills for social engagement at 51.4% down from 53.3% at the beginning of the first semester. During semester one, 192 students received help in the three defined areas for social engagement: making friends, joining clubs or organizations, or student government. An additional 120 students anticipated receiving help in these areas in the second semester. Student satisfaction in the area of interaction with other students rated at 5.59/7, while opportunities for service learning rated at 5.55/7 in the MYSA survey.

Goal 5: Mastery of a Defined Body of Knowledge at the Baccalaureate Level The data for this goal and its learning outcome showed the progression of students through the major areas of study. The data chart showed new students accepted to the major, the current student enrollment, as well as degrees conferred for the last three years. The data is consistent with the rates of graduation, also given. Interesting is the fact that the six-year graduation rate for first year students mirrors the persistence rate indicated from the MYSA survey results on commitment to college. The faculty responses to the end of course reflection for Spring 2020, as chosen from a sample of senior level courses, shows the rigor of the evidence used to evaluate the chosen learning outcome of emphasis within the course. The level of Bloom’s critical thinking shows sufficient sophistication as expected from this level of course. Assessment methods also show emphasis on evaluation of student work products done over a period of time and which embody application of learned content and skills of the major. RNL Student Satisfaction Survey (SSI), administered in spring 2020, shows students are satisfied with the content and quality of instruction at a level higher than the national average, at a statistically significant level. This same survey showed that students were not as satisfied with the number of courses available in their program of study each semester. The responses in this area fall just below the national average. This may be due to the small numbers in a major and in some cases, limited faculty within a discipline.



Action Plan: The Office of Institutional Assessment and Accreditation will share this report with its various constituents, and it will be made publicly available on the Assessment of Student Learning page of the university’s website. Annually, an overview of this report is presented to the Faculty Assembly, Provost Council, and is made available to the President’s Cabinet. The findings of this report will also influence the dashboard and results reporting for directions 1 and 2 of the Strategic Compass. Actions related to this report and its discussion will move forward within the above-mentioned organizations and committees.

georgian court university undergraduate student learning

Documents